The USSR was just as capitalist as the PRC. Because it had generalized commodity production and wage-labor. You can’t have a socialist mode of production in just one country, as the interaction with capitalist countries will infect your system.
The PRC is a highly technocratic advanced capitalist democracy, and yes, it will likely outpace the west in a number of key statistics over time, that doesn’t make it socialist, because the productive mode is capitalism.
Taiwan will voluntarily reunify with China in the next two decades.
We will either switch to a socialist mode of production or die
The only way to accomplish that is with international socialism
The word communism, literally means, a classless, stateless, moneyless society, that fulfills the principle “from each according to their ability to each according to their need”. That’s what the word means, do you dispute this definition?
Definitionally according to whom? Who defined it? What were their qualifications? Based on what evidence?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism#History
I cannot think of a single great civilization from history that reached communism of as a stage of development before the 20th century. Please name one or two. If it is a stage of civilizational development, you should be able to demonstrate that.
Again, does the fact there were times in human history before capitalism, with no knowledge or experience of capitalism, somehow make capitalism not a thing? Can something be defined only after it is seen?
The word communism, literally means, a classless, stateless, moneyless society, that fulfills the principle “from each according to their ability to each according to their need”. That’s what the word means, do you dispute this definition?
Very kind comment. Definitionally, communism describes a stage of civilizational development, what study do I need to prove that? That’s literally what the word means.
Capitalism is a mode of production. The next mode of production after capitalism will be socialism.
Does the fact capitalism didn’t exist in certain periods of human history mean it literally could not exist in the future? Communism is a classless, stateless, moneyless society, fufilling the principle, “From each according to their ability, to each according to their need.” The argument is that communism will be achieved through an incredibly productive socialist economy, the problem with capitalism as a productive mode is that its internal contradictions make communism unreachable.
Communism is a stage of civilizational development, no “country” will ever reach it or has reached it. It will be international. It requires a highly advanced and productive industrial socialist economy to be realized.
Election where you can only vote for one party isn’t particularly democratic.
Why not? You vote. Parties are just an abstraction.
Neither is one with two parties, for that matter.
The more parties it has the more democratic it is? Please. Even in countries with advanced proportional representation schemes, you instead just get huge party alliances based on regionalism, and guess what, they remain capitalist bourgeoisie dictatorships.
The USSR was democratic, it was a capitalist democracy, like well, all modern democracies. Just because it came in a different form doesn’t make it somehow not democratic.
The USSR had a democracy and many democratic elections. It was just not a liberal democracy. The USSR had a welfare state, and so was a social democracy.
Communism is a stage of civilizational development
The USSR was a social democracy, there can be no such thing as a “communist country”.
that is not authoritarian
all states are authoritarian the nature of the state is authority
deleted by creator